One More.Time.For.The.World....says the guy who claimed Ron Paul was going to get 10 million almost votes in the primaries, when in fact, he wasn't even almost close

I NEVER stated that, asshole.

tweedle-dumb wrote:

and that Ayn Rands crappy book was the highest selling book of all almost time, when in fact, it isn't listed on any of the lists of highest selling books, also not even almost close...

...regardless...

I already corrected the error. But Atlas Shrugged is still ONE of the biggest selling novels of all time. And since Obama has taken office, its back catalogue sales are roughly 500,000 copies. And those sales are 7-10x higher than they were before Obama took office...

snips from link:In 1996, the NRA successfully lobbied Congress to put this restriction into the CDC's budget: "None of the funds made available ... may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The NRA was infuriated with a 1993 study sponsored by the CDC that concluded having a gun at home offered little protection, but it increased almost three-fold the risk of one family member shooting another.

CDC funding into gun violence research has plummeted 96 percent since 1996, to just $100,000 of last year's $5.6 billion CDC budget.

Do the anti-gun controllers believe that crimes involving guns (murder, robbery etc.) would rise if there were stricter gun control laws in the US? Are there any neutral statistics (i.e. from a source that has no ax to grind) that would support this view?

Here is another non-partisan study titled "Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality" -

I wonder why the two posters above, particularly the one at the top of this page, neglected to address or even acknowledge either of these two posts?

That's because "risks" and "research plummeting" don't prove a thing, you delusional idiot.

==============================

And that reminds me. Remember a few months back when an Aussie poster (can't remember his name) used the Australian gun ban as justification that it would work worldwide? Well, here's what I found...

The notorious 1996 Port Arthur mass shooting where 35 people were killed and the other 13 mass Australian shootings (where over 70 people were murdered in total) that led to the that country's gun ban in 1997, were spread over 18 years (1978-1996). That's not even 1 mass shooting per year on average, nor is it more than 4 deaths per year on average. And while the firearm suicide related death rate has sharply decreased since the '97 ban, there is no evidence showing or proving that firearm related homicides have significantly decreased.

"In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

Some also fail to realize that the Australian population as of 2011 was 22.6 million, whereas the US population as of 2012 was 313.9 million AND that there are already at least 300 million guns in America in comparison (nearly 1 per person).

But yet some think it's a fair and accurate comparison between both countries and that a gun ban will work in the US?!

Lastly, I've stated this before but I guess I'll have to state it again: the annual average for firearm related deaths in the US is 10,000-12,000...and roughly 75% of those are gang and/or suicide related. However, annually, on average, there are 35,000+ vehicular, 80,000+ alcohol related & over 400,000 tobacco related deaths in the US...

With the exception of 2007/08, firearm incidents, victims and firearm crimes per all violent incidents have been on the increase in the US since 2005, right after the lifting of the assault weapons ban.

If you want to get a firearms licence in NZ, you simply apply to the police who will firstly check your police record. If you are clean, they give you a basic 25 question commonsense exam on handling and using a firearm. If you pass they then perform a number of in depth interviews with your employer, neighbours, friends and relatives. If they decide you are not a loose unit, they then come to your home and make sure you have an approved lockable gun safe, no white supremacist or Frank Zappa posters on the wall and no shrine to Bieber or Buble, oh and no meth lab in your garage or secret basement. Most of the interviews are carried out by a local community policeman. The process is pretty thorough....However if you want to buy ammo, no licence is required???

With the exception of 2007/08, firearm incidents, victims and firearm crimes per all violent incidents have been on the increase in the US since 2005, right after the lifting of the assault weapons ban.

So...in conclusion to the data from this gragh, the Brady Bill (assault weapons ban) was enacted November 30, 1993. The rates decreased steadily from 1995 - 2003.

In 2004, GH Bush let the Brady Bill (assault weapons ban) expire. The rates increased each year since 1994 with 2007/08 the sole exception.

Again, no almosts about it. The information I posted is completely and entirely accurate.

...also, your last question exclamation should read...

Maybe that's because most of the states in the US with the highest firearm death rates are in the south where there's more than obviously a higher concentration of firearms per capita?!

...for statistical accuracy.

yawn

If you think the Brady Bill made a difference then why have the firearm rates NOT increased during most years since the 2004 expiration of the Brady Bill?

Also, while the link you posted which includes the graph in question is apparently accurate, what you claim it represents is NOT. This is what you claimed, asshole...

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

Disco Boy wrote:

tweedle-dumb wrote:

With the exception of 2007/08, firearm incidents, victims and firearm crimes per all violent incidents have been on the increase in the US since 2005, right after the lifting of the assault weapons ban.

If you think the Brady Bill made a difference then why have the firearm rates NOT increased during most years since the 2004 expiration of the Brady Bill?

The Brady Bill expired in 2004. What part of that don't you understand? Also, the firearm related murder rates increased almost every year since the expiration of the Brady Bill. What part of THAT don't you understand? Do you think you're smarter than the DOJ, law professors and statitians? Gawd you're a dense fuck aren't you?

tweedle-dumber wrote:

Also, while the link you posted which includes the graph in question is apparently accurate, what you claim it represents is NOT. This is what you claimed, asshole...

You admit that the graph is correct.

tweedle-dumber wrote:

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

yawn

tweedle-dumber wrote:

tweedle-dumb wrote:

With the exception of 2007/08, firearm incidents, victims and firearm crimes per all violent incidents have been on the increase in the US since 2005, right after the lifting of the assault weapons ban.

I just knew if I clicked on that link, it wouldn't back up almost anything you're claiming. And of course, it doesn't (just like most, if not all, of your other links).

What part of the gun related crime rates decreased when the Brady Bill was enacted from 1994 - 2004, and the rates increased almost every year from 2004 - Now since it expired don't you get? It's right there in black and white. You have to be the most dense ignoramous I've had the comedy relief to call out on misinformation ever. Gawd you're beyond a dense fuck. Keep on trying to get out of the station though. You might make it out of the lobby someday.

tweedle-dumber wrote:

tweedle-dumb wrote:

--------------------------------------------------

Some more statistically accurate factoids...

People who keep guns in homes are almost 3 times more likely to be murdered.

Guns in the home were associated with a 8-fold increase in risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

ONCE AGAIN, "risks" & "likely" are NOT proof.

You'll never get it because you're a dense fuck. The statistics prove it to be true, and you even admit that the graph is correct. Way to backtrack tweedle-dumber.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum